Sunday, December 15, 2013

Problems with Cosmological and Kalam Arguments

Due to his tenacity, and enormous popularity with Christian apologists, William Lane Craig gets a lot of attention for his arguments for God.  Here's an explanation of his Kalam argument, and secondly, a discussion of several serious problems that cripple it.



Objections to the Kalam argument and Cosmological arguments in general:


4 comments:

Bob H said...

Dr. Matt, Thanks again for your posting.

I have argued your objections on YouTube with such users as Father Barron and InspiringPhilosophy(IP). Although, Cantor successfully refuted Aristotle's potential versus actual infinity reasoning, the strongest criticism is “The Gap” problem. The Cosmological arguments to be successful must depend on a valid and sound Ontological Argument. Fr. B. argues for a non contingency grounding of contingency and then uses the connection strategy of Aquinas by stating and “this we call God.” However, when Fr. B. is challenged to show how this demonstrates a Christian Triune God, he conveniently does not respond. IP recognizes that there is not a successful argument, but there is the cumulative effect of natural theology, feelings and faith.

Amen,
BH

westley sable said...

A New Thermodynamic Theory of Life
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Hi Matt. This theory implicitly considers Tarskian meta-language statements as I do explicitly.

westley sable said...

*This theorist

Kathrin Ketti said...

Hello This is fucking web site here. Are u a good sucker then click this virus site ..... happy fucking day .......... 